Playing God - the afterlife

[knapplc]

I like beer.

 

[Undone]

+1 for beer, then.

[HuskerShark]

I like beer.

 

 

That's excellent, but how is that glass not getting any fuller?

 

Mind.... Blown....

 

 

 

 

/sarcasm

[JJ Husker]

 

I am not claiming it takes more than that. However, it also is not as simple as stating that you believe Jesus died for you. As you pointed out, there are a whole bunch of other things that need to happen and be reflected in your life that are a result of really accepting that invitation. I've read enough of your posts to know that you understand this but, for people who have not read your posts, people on fence (or the other side of it), or people that have just not been exposed to the message due to circumstance or purposely ignoring it, saying all you have to do is say yes to the invitation doesn't really cover it. You have to understand what you are saying yes to and really believe it and then your life will reflect that acceptance. In my mind, that is quite a bit more involved than simply accepting the invitation.

 

 

 

I respectfully disagree. The sentence I bolded isn't compatible with Scripture as I understand it, but maybe you just worded it poorly. Those things do not need to happen, because if they did that would make them requirements, when Scripture says we are saved by faith alone, through grace alone from Jesus Christ alone. However, they do always follow as a result of salvation.

 

The main thing I think we're at odds at here is that I don't think you are allowing the Holy Spirit to do His job properly. I used to get stuck on having to explain through all of this, like you are doing, until I came to the realization that people don't need to understand all those things. When Jesus called the disciples to follow Him, He didn't give them a breakdown of the doctrines of salvation, nor did he give them a theological quiz. He just told them to follow, and somewhere along the way they believed and understood, because later Jesus asks Peter who he thinks He is, and Peter says "you are the Christ."

 

It is, quite beautifully and divinely wonderful, that simple. The reason I believe saying yes to the invitation (assuming it is a heartfelt and sincere yes) is enough to cover it is because the Holy Spirit is the one who does the covering, and the one who does the convicting and leading to understanding and wisdom. I can try all I might to make sure people understand ever tenant of how to be saved and become a disciple of Jesus, but that information can not regenerate them as a new creation.

 

I may have worded it poorly because, in a sense, it is as easy as you say. What I was driving at is the acceptance has to be genuine and you do have to believe it. Maybe I should've said "there are a whole bunch of other things that need to will happen and be reflected in your life that are a result of really accepting that invitation."

 

The interpretation of scripture that Landlord posted above is what I was always taught. Humans have free will, but that free will does not empower us to do any "work" that will get us into heaven. "Works" are a by-product of faith, not a means to the end of salvation.

 

Humans have free will to turn away from God ("negative free will" as I've been taught) so we can turn away from God, but we cannot turn to God, insasmuchas we cannot decide today "I'm going to believe, and be saved." The actual factual salvation comes from Christ's sacrifice on the cross and the Holy Spirit coming into your heart. Those two things are only accomplished by God's grace, and nothing else - certainly not anything the person does. The act of "turning to God" is simply no longer turning away from God, and again not an act, but the absence of action - the absence of actively turning away from God.

 

We cannot save ourselves. Christ and the Holy Spirit accomplish this. So the statement, "...there are a whole bunch of other things that need to happen..." is not Biblically accurate, nor, I believe, is it Biblically supportable.

 

I agree with this knapp. I just was not wording correctly the point I was attempting but apparently failing to make. However, just as there are things a person does to turn away from God, there are also things people can do to help prevent this turning away. My point isn't that doing these things causes you to be saved or that we can save ourselves but rather that these things can help place a person in a position where it can happen. I'll use an example that I am sure some people will have a problem with; Some friends of ours never go to church, never read the bible, and do not expose their children to the message at all. Whereas we go to church every week (well usually 51 out of 52 weeks), read the Bible, participate in Bible studies occasionally, send our kids to catechism, etc. I'm not bragging or trying to claim this makes us better than anyone else or claiming those other people can't or won't be saved but, of these two situations, who is more likely to not turn away from God and is more likely to accept the invitation?

[Hedley Lamarr]

Ones good deeds in life should outweigh the negatives. If there is an afterlife which I have no clue about that would be the way I would decide.

[knapplc]

I know your favorite question has always been if the God of the Bible were real, why did He create us on a fallen world instead of in heaven? I always struggled to think of an answer, and still don't have a legitimate answer (although I have ideas), but in the last year or two I've realized I don't need to. That even if something defies my logic, perception or understanding, that the base, root answer of why God would do anything is for God's own glory.

 

Very easy to answer.

 

This world and all who were in it when God created it...were perfect. The choice of rebelling against God through Adam/Eve is what caused, as Paul said, 'sin to enter the world' (Rom 5:12). Notice that Paul didn't say sin entered mankind...he says 'entered the world'...to me that means we lost perfection in a perfect place.

 

So why would God create us on Earth instead of Heaven? Because we were created in a perfect place and had perfection. What's was the difference between Earth and Heaven then? Not much really.

 

As a loving father, there is no reason for an omnipotent god to allow evil to be there in the first place. It's akin to allowing a drug dealer to hang out in your house with your kids. If the kid turns to drugs... oh well, right?

 

Parents spend their children's lives protecting them from that. God didn't - he turned a blind eye to evil's actions, tacitly permitting them. Therefore, God is responsible for evil being in the world - and this is not an arguable point, because evil was only there because God, the omnipotent God of the bible, allowed it to be there. Without God's permission, evil cannot enter mankind's Eden.

 

This entirely flies in the face of a "loving father."

[knapplc]

So you're saying God does not have the power to stop Satan from coming to Earth.

[Undone]

As a loving father, there is no reason for an omnipotent god to allow evil to be there in the first place.

The flip side to this (and I'm almost 100% sure you've considered this, due to recent conversations) is that true love isn't forced. It only exists in a system of free will.

 

I know my wife loves me. She tells me so and demonstrates it daily. But what makes that love so tangible (and quite frankly awesome) is that I know that she has the free will to leave me for another dude. I'm not forcing her to love me.

 

devnet...would you mind starting a different thread for that particular train of theological thought? Referring to the "grace + works" thing, please? It's going to derail this discussion. It's a great discussion - it's just not really pertaining to this one.

[knapplc]

So, in order for my love for God to be "true," God has to allow me the opportunity to earn eternal damnation, pain and suffering?

 

Couldn't I have a true love for God while also existing, forever, in an evil-free environment?

 

Better yet, couldn't I have a choice myself, personally, whether I want to love God without the fear of eternal reprisal, and have an informed opinion on which to base that choice? I fail to see how it's better for God to damn me utterly to hell at birth unless I overcome a preposterous amount of obstacles, and if I make a misstep at any time along the way I'm screwed forever, while all he has to do is wish evil away and I - and the rest of mankind - are saved, evil stops, and we all go to heaven.

 

By allowing me to be born on Earth in a sinful environment, I am guilty before ever being allowed to become innocent. Damned first, maybe saved later. That's absurd, and the antithesis of love.

[Undone]

Couldn't I have a true love for God while also existing, forever, in an evil-free environment?

it's possible that the answer to that is "no." But I also concede that it's also possible that the answer to that question could be "yes." I'm discussing this with you and making sense of it as I grow in my faith, just as you've had your own journey.

 

...while all he has to do is wish evil away and I - and the rest of mankind - are saved, evil stops, and we all go to heaven.

This is where I'll probably end up in deep water with fellow Christians for even mentioning this...but it's possible that man has selfishly misinterpreted the "hell doctrine." I'm not saying that I believe that's for sure the case - I'm in the process of searching through that, as we speak. My wife and I both. And it's been a good journey so far. The doctrines I was raised to believe seem to possibly have some holes in them, on the whole. Again - that might be a different thread topic.

[The Dude]

I would make it so my existence makes no logical sense. Then all the people who believed in my existence based on faith would be shipped straight to Hell.

[knapplc]

The truth is, all of that is irrelevant. Were God to be who Christians think He is, we wouldn't be here, we'd be in heaven, we wouldn't be judged guilty from birth based on someone else's sin 6,000 years ago, and all of this stuff would be moot.

[Undone]

I would make it so my existence makes no logical sense.

So a "First Cause" is not something that you see as necessary with regards to the Origins discussion?

 

The truth is, all of that is irrelevant. Were God to be who Christians think He is, we wouldn't be here, we'd be in heaven, we wouldn't be judged guilty from birth based on someone else's sin 6,000 years ago, and all of this stuff would be moot.

I think you know at this point my level of genuineness on these topics. So I ask you then, where does that leave your "worldview?" Atheist? Agnostic? Jeffersonian deist?

[Creighton Duke]

I acknowledge that as God, I would have already seen them before, but my criteria would be.....tits or GTFO

[knapplc]

The truth is, all of that is irrelevant. Were God to be who Christians think He is, we wouldn't be here, we'd be in heaven, we wouldn't be judged guilty from birth based on someone else's sin 6,000 years ago, and all of this stuff would be moot.

I think you know at this point my level of genuineness on these topics. So I ask you then, where does that leave your "worldview?" Atheist? Agnostic? Jeffersonian deist?

 

I'm really not into labels anymore. I don't believe the Christian God story as presented in the Bible. At this point I'm "none of the above" and I don't care if that makes me any kind of "ist." I'm just a bloke trying to get through life. I don't want or need a label for that.